May 2, 2011 § Leave a comment
The MRCP sets out the rules that establish discovery in our courts.
Just as important as the MRCP are the Uniform Chancery Court Rules (UCCR), where some critical discovery provisions reside. UCCR 1.10 provides:
A. All discovery must be completed within ninety days from service of an answer by the applicable defendant. Additional discovery time may be allowed with leave of court upon written motion setting forth good cause for the extension. Absent special circumstances the court will not allow testimony at trial of an expert witness who was not designated as an expert witness to all attorneys of record at least sixty days before trial.
B. When responding to discovery requests, interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission, the responding party shall, as part of the responses, set forth immediately preceding the response the question or request to which such response is given. Responses shall not be deemed to have been served without compliance to this subdivision.
C. No motion to compel shall be heard unless the moving party shall incorporate in the motion a certificate that movant has conferred in good faith with the opposing attorney in an effort to resolve the dispute and has been unable to do so. Motions to compel shall quote verbatim each contested request, the specific objection to the request, the grounds for the objection and the reasons supporting the motion.
I have enforced that 90-day deadline whenever asked to do it. It’s there, and it’s enforceable. It’s also there to expedite litigation, which is almost always a good thing for the litigants.
As for the 60-day requirement for disclosure of experts, I posted about it here.
I’ve noticed some younger lawyers in our district not complying with 1.10(B). To save yourself some trouble, get counsel opposite to email the discovery requests to you so that you don’t have to retype them.
Week before last I had a motion to compel presented that did not repeat the discovery request or response. Let me assure you that it is always counterproductive to put the judge to unnecessary inconvenience and trouble, particularly when you have not complied with the clear requirement of the rules.
April 4, 2011 § 3 Comments
Uniform Chancery Court Rule (UCCR) 1.10 states that, “Absent special circumstances the court will not allow testimony at trial of an expert witness who was not designated as an expert witness to all attorneys of record at least sixty days before trial.”
The question arises from time to time whether Rule 1.10 requires disclosure where there has been no discovery request asking information about expert witnesses. The question was answered succinctly in City of Jackson v. Perry, 764 So.2d 373, 383 (Miss. 2000), in which the Mississippi Supreme Court was confronted with a situation in a circuit court trial where the trial judge had allowed the testimony of two expert witnesses who had not been designated under the circuit court rule counterpart to UCCR 1.10. The high court’s opinion states the law as follows:
“The City and Edwards argue that the trial court erred in allowing Officers Charles Smith and Tim Corbitt to testify as experts without being designated pursuant to Rule 4.04A of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court. Rule 4.04A of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules, states that, “[a]bsent special circumstances, the court will not allow testimony at trial of an expert witness who was not designated as an expert witness to all attorneys of record at least 60 days before trial.” The City argues that Perry did not offer any special circumstances, at trial for not having designated either Officer Smith or Officer Corbitt and therefore, the trial judge abused his discretion when he allowed them to testify. The City argues that this Court should rule that the testimony from Officers Smith and Corbitt inadmissible.
“¶ 52. The City’s reliance on Rule 4.04A is misplaced. Rule 4.04A does not stand alone. In order for there to be a violation of a discovery request, there must first be a discovery request. Here, neither party made a discovery request pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, the City failed to propound any discovery and conceded there is no discovery violation. The trial court stated that a party “can[not] object to them [Perry] offering it [expert witness] if you don’t ask for it in a discovery request.”
“¶ 53. There was no violation of Rule 4.04A because there was no discovery request pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4).”
If you want to invoke Rule 1.10, you must have made the discovery request for designation of experts. And on the the flip side, if you’re asked to designate experts in discovery, you’d better do so more than sixty days before trial unless you can prove “special circumstances.”
I recently found special circumstances and allowed the testimony of an expert on less than sixty days notice where the case had been put on a fast track to trial due to exigent circumstances, no order expediting discovery had been sought or entered, and the discovery responses were not due under the rules until the day of trial.
Thanks to Professor Guff Abbott at Ole Miss Law School for the cite.